On dualities…

Lazy, lazy humans

It’s one of the biggest problems we face in modern times; has led to incredible false knowledge through ‘lazy knowing’; and it is the curse of Homo sapiens because of our bilateral symmetry.

Dualities are a human curse.

First of all, this is a thought sketch so **** off if you can’t even imagine such a thing (yup it’s like that and I do feel guilty). Secondly, you are bringing 4,000 years of intellectual prejudice to this idea, so try to watch out for that too…

Dualities are easy conceptual metaphors.

They present a simple pattern we can all make sense of—it’s the precursor to the Sesame Street narrative of “one of these things is not like the others; one of these things is not the same”. With a duality sometimes the very definition of the elements are derived from what they are not rather than what they actually are.

This could be a result of cognitive categorisation (how we organise stuff quickly to reduce brain load) but later in our experiences it might be driven more by the rhetorical power it confers (rather than constructing an argument, you can simply apply a duality knowing it will persuade by its nature).

Dualities are ‘easy’ knowledge.

They provide an assumption about both the reality and the knowledge system surrounding that reality at the same time. Most of the time we simply don’t even question dualities—we accept them as both the knowledge being presented and (possibly hence) the reality that is inferred.

That means that they are valuable and that’s why they then become conceptual metaphors—not simply categorifying or rhetorical devices. The sheer value of such a labour-saving device is such that it will inevitably generate its own cognitive reward. First, we find it useful. Next, we find it effective. And finally, we put those toegether and feel all satisfied at having lazily convinced others by the creation of ‘anti-knowledge’.

In politics we see the best (laziest) examples.

In fact it’s in politics that we see one of the key ‘reasons’ for dualities as a value system that realises the potential of easy knowledge. Red vs Blue is just easier than “we have quite a complex socio-political problem relating to longevity and shifting social care patterns”. Far easier to frame a position in terms of opposites than consider the genuine complexites that might be involved.

By framing an argument or position using (or as) a duality you can infer knowledge that doesn’t actually exist. As soon as a duality is presented, a whole bunch of assumptions are created around ‘what the thing is not’. As soon as we say that the issue is one of social care, a whole range of ‘things it is not’ are inferred.

And it’s all because it’s an easy metaphor. I’m going to suggest that it starts with a pretty basic embodied cognitive knowledge—our own bilateral symmetry (ok, even I’m slightly worried now)

“On the other hand…”

(simple, classic embodied metaphor.)

“their side of the story”

(spatial metaphor)

“It’s black and white”

(complex contradiction — not sure if it’s quite metaphorical)

Think of how many times you use those phrases each and every day. Think of all the times you not only didn’t consider the other person’s point of view, but didn’t consider that points of view are situated genuinely multivariously across multiple readings of reality.

How many times do we actually ever force ourselves to really cognitively explore a problem instead of just frame it as a duality.

Lazy, lazy humans.